Ashwin v Laker v Verity v Grimmett

[OverratedSanity]

Verity definitely got overrated a bit in that thread. He's still better than grimmett imo,whose bowling just doesn't pass the modern eye test imo. Of course, players from older eras are going to look worse/different sometimes because it was different conditions and different techniques. But Grimmett's bowling action seems to completely lack the powerful surge through delivery even other bowlers from his era had. I can see quicks like Lindwall, Miller, Farnes etc. being successful in any era with a bit of adjustment unlike Grimmett who looks really floaty to me and doesn't look like the revs are there.

The above could be nonsense and admittedly players shouldn't be judged on how they hypothetically might do in an imaginary era but I don't think his actual numbers are overwhelmingly great enough to compensate for that.

 

[Coronis]

Verity definitely got overrated a bit in that thread. He's still better than grimmett imo,whose bowling just doesn't pass the modern eye test imo. Of course, players from older eras are going to look worse/different sometimes because it was different conditions and different techniques. But Grimmett's bowling action seems to completely lack the powerful surge through delivery even other bowlers from his era had. I can see quicks like Lindwall, Miller, Farnes etc. being successful in any era with a bit of adjustment unlike Grimmett who looks really floaty to me and doesn't look like the revs are there.

The above could be nonsense and admittedly players shouldn't be judged on how they hypothetically might do in an imaginary era but I don't think his actual numbers are overwhelmingly great enough to compensate for that.

iirc I’ve read that he didn’t turn it greatly but got most of his wickets with unerring accuracy.

Could be misremembering tho

 

[cnerd123]

So O’Reilly is basically an Ashwin level bowler but only one of them is rated as ATG

Nah, O'Reilly is definitely an ATG too

 

[cnerd123]

Verity definitely got overrated a bit in that thread. He's still better than grimmett imo,whose bowling just doesn't pass the modern eye test imo. Of course, players from older eras are going to look worse/different sometimes because it was different conditions and different techniques. But Grimmett's bowling action seems to completely lack the powerful surge through delivery even other bowlers from his era had. I can see quicks like Lindwall, Miller, Farnes etc. being successful in any era with a bit of adjustment unlike Grimmett who looks really floaty to me and doesn't look like the revs are there.

The above could be nonsense and admittedly players shouldn't be judged on how they hypothetically might do in an imaginary era but I don't think his actual numbers are overwhelmingly great enough to compensate for that.

Grimmet was very much a product of his era. Getting the ball to hang in the air and drop on a good length repeatedly with enough control and nous to deceive batters. Modern day bats, power hitting and pitches probably nerf him but not fair to hold that against him. He's not going to develop a bowling style to counter batters who don't exist.

 

[Prince EWS]

Underwood criminally underrated.

Straight to jail?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Someone as obsessed as Grum towards spin bowling would have been great regardless of the era.

 

[shortpitched713]

Having watched replay footage is not a criteria. What if Ashwin was from 1900 and Verity from 2000?

You're missing the point.

When we pick guys like this from a lo g ago time, we are essentially ceding that we abstract our appreciation of the sport to just hard numbers on a stats sheet.

And I'll admit I'm very guilty of it too, but there's so much more that goes into evaluating cricketers than appreciating the mathematics of big number vs small number. All of us would have been able to appreciate exponentially more of the skill and destructiveness of Ashwin as compared to Verity (except maybe L&L OR JBMAC or some others). When you add the fact that most of us understand that the level of the game wasn't quite the same almost 100 years ago, as compared to now, the choice to elevate Verity over Ashwin, when they have very similar statistical records (and Ashwin's has way more volume and breadth), seems farcical.

 

[peterhrt]

On good pitches Verity was a defensive bowler, lacking the flight and variation of Rhodes.

During the 1936-37 series in Australia, it was reported that England's weakness was in spin bowling. Verity was considered ineffective compared with Australia's spinners. Even on the couple of occasions when rain damaged the pitch, it was Voce who took advantage.

Verity is another cricketer whose reputation grew after he stopped playing. At the time he was not rated as highly as Grimmett in England, Australia or South Africa.

 

[capt_Luffy]

On good pitches Verity was a defensive bowler, lacking the flight and variation of Rhodes.

During the 1936-37 series in Australia, it was reported that England's weakness was in spin bowling. Verity was considered ineffective compared with Australia's spinners. Even on the couple of occasions when rain damaged the pitch, it was Voce who took advantage.

Verity is another cricketer whose reputation grew after he stopped playing. At the time he was not rated as highly as Grimmett in England, Australia or South Africa.

Was Rhodes considered an equal bowler to Verity??

 

[peterhrt]

Was Rhodes considered an equal bowler to Verity??

Rhodes was considered superior.

For a long time England's top bowlers were judged largely on what they did in Australia. The all-time England XI selected by Arlott, Swanton and Frith in 1977 included five bowlers. Four had taken 30 wickets or more in a single series in Australia: Rhodes, Barnes, Tate and Larwood. The fifth bowler, Laker, was chosen last to balance the attack. It was made clear that Rhodes had not been picked as an all-rounder, but as the best left-arm spinner on all wickets.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

You're missing the point.

When we pick guys like this from a lo g ago time, we are essentially ceding that we abstract our appreciation of the sport to just hard numbers on a stats sheet.

And I'll admit I'm very guilty of it too, but there's so much more that goes into evaluating cricketers than appreciating the mathematics of big number vs small number. All of us would have been able to appreciate exponentially more of the skill and destructiveness of Ashwin as compared to Verity (except maybe L&L OR JBMAC or some others). When you add the fact that most of us understand that the level of the game wasn't quite the same almost 100 years ago, as compared to now, the choice to elevate Verity over Ashwin, when they have very similar statistical records (and Ashwin's has way more volume and breadth), seems farcical.

thats a problematic viewpoint. clearly theres a flaw in that

 

[subshakerz]

Manipulated poll. The anti-Ashwin vote is deliberately split among old-timers.

 

[ma1978]

Manipulated poll. The anti-Ashwin vote is deliberately split among old-timers.

You are the sole member of the anti Ashwin vote. The others take a cricketing view, you have an agenda

 

[subshakerz]

You are the sole member of the anti Ashwin vote. The others take a cricketing view, you have an agenda

No sense of humor, man.

 

[ma1978]

No sense of humor, man.

Fair criticism this time

 

[a massive zebra]

On good pitches Verity was a defensive bowler, lacking the flight and variation of Rhodes.

During the 1936-37 series in Australia, it was reported that England's weakness was in spin bowling. Verity was considered ineffective compared with Australia's spinners. Even on the couple of occasions when rain damaged the pitch, it was Voce who took advantage.

Verity is another cricketer whose reputation grew after he stopped playing. At the time he was not rated as highly as Grimmett in England, Australia or South Africa.

The highlighted comments come across as biased, unobjective and not reflective of Verity's immense standing in his own era.

During his own era, Verity was certainly considered one of the all time great bowlers. For instance, here is a quote from his Wisden obituary:

"Judged by any standard, Verity was a great bowler. Merely to watch him was to know that. The balance of the run up, the high ease of the left-handed action, the scrupulous length, the pensive variety, all proclaimed the master. He combined nature with art to a degree not equalled by any other English bowler of our time. He received a handsome legacy of skill and, by an application that verged on scientific research, turned it into a fortune. There have been bowlers who have reached greatness without knowing, or, perhaps, caring to know just how or why; but Verity could analyse his own intentions without losing the joy of surprise and describe their effect without losing the company of a listener. He was the ever-learning professor, justly proud yet utterly humble."

Your comments about Verity lacking the variation of the best bowlers are also inaccurate. In 1944, R.C. Robertson-Glasgow wrote:

"Naturally, on wet or crumbled or sticky pitches, he reduced pace and tossed the leg-spinner higher, but even here his variety of pace and of angle of delivery was remarkable. He was a born schemer; tireless, but never wild, in experiment; as sensitive in observation as a good host, or as an instrumentalist who spots a rival on the beat; the scholar who does not only dream, the inventor who can make it work. "

There was no consensus in favour of Grimmett over Verity during their own time, at least amongst the best players. For instance, in Verity's Wisden obituary, Bradman is quoted as saying "I think I know all about Clarrie (Grimmett), but with Hedley I am never sure. You see, there's no breaking point with him." In several other interviews, Bradman repeated his view that Verity was more difficult to face than Grimmett. In Ronald Mason's biography of Walter Hammond, he said Hammond considered Bill O'Reilly and Hedley Verity to be the best spinners he ever played against.

A few more statistical things to consider:

• While Verity was indeed relatively ineffective in the 1936-37 Ashes, it should be noted he far outbowled Grimmett in 1932/33, the only Ashes series they both played in Australia (Verity 12 wickets @ 27, Grimmett 5 wickets @ 65).
• Verity got Bradman out more times in Tests than anyone else in the 1930s, and averaged less than 60 against him, a really commendable record.
• Grimmett's test bowing average is boosted by his dominance of the weaker teams. He had to work much harder for his wickets against England, averaging 32 against them. Verity was more successful against an Australian side including Bradman.
• Verity once took 14 wickets in a single day against Australia. Grimmett never got close to this against England.
• Verity's first class record is leagues ahead, averaging 14 against 22 by Grimmett. With only 6 Australian states as opposed to umpteen counties, perhaps the standard of batting in Australian first class cricket was higher and Grimmett certainly wouldn't have bowled on as many sticky wickets. But these factors did not stop O'Reilly achieving a similar first class record to Verity on the same pitches Grimmett played on. Also, if we consider English first class cricket only, Grimmett's first class record is still materially worse than Verity.

 

[Coronis]

A few more statistical things to consider:

• While Verity was indeed relatively ineffective in the 1936-37 Ashes, it should be noted he far outbowled Grimmett in 1932/33, the only Ashes series they both played in Australia (Verity 12 wickets @ 27, Grimmett 5 wickets @ 65).
• Verity's first class record is leagues ahead, averaging 14 against 22 by Grimmett. With only 6 Australian states as opposed to umpteen counties, perhaps the standard of batting in Australian first class cricket was higher and Grimmett certainly wouldn't have bowled on as many sticky wickets. But these factors did not stop O'Reilly achieving a similar first class record to Verity on the same pitches Grimmett played on. Also, if we consider English first class cricket only, Grimmett's first class record is still materially worse than Verity.

Just to address this… despite Grimmett playing 3 matches in that series and Verity 4, they only played 2 matches together, where Verity took 0/50 and 1/57, and Grimmett took 1/118 and 3/168 so that discrepancy may not be quite as bad as it seems on face value. Lets also remember that Verity had Larwood and Bowes smashing through Australia and had a much easier job relatively that series.

Both had better records in England than Australia in the Ashes - I think the difference in wickets is also applicable to their FC records.

 

[peterhrt]

The highlighted comments come across as biased, unobjective and not reflective of Verity's immense standing in his own era.

During his own era, Verity was certainly considered one of the all time great bowlers. For instance, here is a quote from his Wisden obituary:

"Judged by any standard, Verity was a great bowler. Merely to watch him was to know that. The balance of the run up, the high ease of the left-handed action, the scrupulous length, the pensive variety, all proclaimed the master. He combined nature with art to a degree not equalled by any other English bowler of our time. He received a handsome legacy of skill and, by an application that verged on scientific research, turned it into a fortune. There have been bowlers who have reached greatness without knowing, or, perhaps, caring to know just how or why; but Verity could analyse his own intentions without losing the joy of surprise and describe their effect without losing the company of a listener. He was the ever-learning professor, justly proud yet utterly humble."

Your comments about Verity lacking the variation of the best bowlers are also inaccurate. In 1944, R.C. Robertson-Glasgow wrote:

"Naturally, on wet or crumbled or sticky pitches, he reduced pace and tossed the leg-spinner higher, but even here his variety of pace and of angle of delivery was remarkable. He was a born schemer; tireless, but never wild, in experiment; as sensitive in observation as a good host, or as an instrumentalist who spots a rival on the beat; the scholar who does not only dream, the inventor who can make it work. "

There was no consensus in favour of Grimmett over Verity during their own time, at least amongst the best players. For instance, in Verity's Wisden obituary, Bradman is quoted as saying "I think I know all about Clarrie (Grimmett), but with Hedley I am never sure. You see, there's no breaking point with him." In several other interviews, Bradman repeated his view that Verity was more difficult to face than Grimmett. In Ronald Mason's biography of Walter Hammond, he said Hammond considered Bill O'Reilly and Hedley Verity to be the best spinners he ever played against.

A few more statistical things to consider:

• While Verity was indeed relatively ineffective in the 1936-37 Ashes, it should be noted he far outbowled Grimmett in 1932/33, the only Ashes series they both played in Australia (Verity 12 wickets @ 27, Grimmett 5 wickets @ 65).
• Verity got Bradman out more times in Tests than anyone else in the 1930s, and averaged less than 60 against him, a really commendable record.
• Grimmett's test bowing average is boosted by his dominance of the weaker teams. He had to work much harder for his wickets against England, averaging 32 against them. Verity was more successful against an Australian side including Bradman.
• Verity once took 15 wickets in a single day against Australia. Grimmett never got close to this against England.
• Verity's first class record is leagues ahead, averaging 14 against 22 by Grimmett. With only 6 Australian states as opposed to umpteen counties, perhaps the standard of batting in Australian first class cricket was higher and Grimmett certainly wouldn't have bowled on as many sticky wickets. But these factors did not stop O'Reilly achieving a similar first class record to Verity on the same pitches Grimmett played on. Also, if we consider English first class cricket only, Grimmett's first class record is still materially worse than Verity.

Not sure why I would be biased against someone who was born in exactly the same place that I was.

Robertson-Glasgow also wrote in Wisden that there were no great English bowlers in 1939: “two or three nearly great”. He reported on Verity's endurance in South Africa: “as ever extremely steady”. Clearly Grimmett was superior there. The Barker/Rosenwater Ashes history says of the 1936-37 series: “The weakness [England's], however, lay fundamentally in spin bowling. England had none of top class...”

Finger spinners back then were sometimes divided into two categories. The slower ones like Rhodes who used flight on good pitches. And the quicker ones like Verity, who were more difficult on helpful surfaces but less resourceful on true ones. Your quote on Verity's variety refers to “wet or crumbled or sticky pitches.” Verity's 14 wickets in a day (not 15) came on a rain-affected pitch tailor-made for finger-spin, even if it was a slow turner rather than a sticky.

Comparing the first-class career average of a Yorkshireman on uncovered wickets with someone operating on the rock hard, mostly covered, Australian pitches of the inter-war period doesn't work. Sutcliffe, Woodfull and Ponsford were contemporary batsmen. Sutcliffe averaged 52, Woodfull and Ponsford both 65. Were the Australians that much better? Of course Sutcliffe, like Verity, performed better than the Australians in England. That is what you would expect. O'Reilly was almost as much of an outlier in Australia as Bradman. Nobody else averaged under 20. It is not just about averages anyway. In Ashes Tests Verity took 3.3 wickets per match, Grimmett 4.8.

The mutual antipathy between Bradman and Grimmett is well known. As is the mutual support offered between Bradman and Verity. The Yorkshireman was about the only one who claimed that Bradman didn't have a weakness on rain-damaged pitches, citing one match between Yorkshire and the Australians in 1938. Obituaries have been known to eulogise cricketers, not least war heroes.

Hammond didn't have much trouble against Grimmett in Australia, but struggled against his leg-stump line in England. Grimmett dismissed him five times during the 1930 series. Hammond averaged 46 in first-class matches when Verity was in the opposition, and was dismissed by him five times.

No argument about their bowling actions. Verity's found its way into the MCC Coaching Manual. Grimmett's would have passed muster during the roundarm era.